for the western district of kentucky paducah division · (suite b), owensboro, kentucky 42203....

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

PADUCAH DIVISION

ALISHA ASKEW, DEBORAH WILLIAMSand, SHAVONNA ASKEW, Individually andon behalf of themselves and all other similarlysituated current and former employees,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. ________________

INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS FLSA Opt-in Collective ActionCORPORATION (a/k/a “IHG”),LINGATE HOSPITALITY, an assumed name of GLENN ENTERPRISES, INC.,LINGATE, a subsidiary of Glenn Enterprises, Inc., JURY DEMANDEDBURGER THEORY, an assumed name ofBIG BLUE BAR, INC., and,GLENN HIGDON, Individually,

Defendants.____________________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT____________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiffs, Alisha Askew, Deborah Williams and Shavonna Askew, individually,

(“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former tipped

employees (servers/bartenders) of Defendants, bring this collective action against Defendants,

Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation (a/k/a Inter-Continental Hotels Group “IHG”), LinGate

Hospitality, an assumed name of Glenn Enterprises, Inc. (a/k/a LinGate Hospitality Group),

LinGate (comprised of Linmar Hospitality and Gateway Lodging), Burger Theory, an assumed

name of Big Blue Bar, Inc. and, Glenn Higdon, individually, (collectively “Defendants”) and,

allege as follows:

5:19-cv-24-TBR

Case 5:19-cv-00024-TBR Document 1 Filed 02/15/19 of 16 PageID #: 1

2

I.INTRODUCTION

This lawsuit is brought against Defendants as a collective action under the Fair Labor

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., to recover unpaid minimum wages and other

damages owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former tipped employees of

Defendants (also known as servers and bartenders), who are members of a class as defined herein.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The FLSA authorizes court actions by private parties to recover damages for violations of

the FLSA’s wage and hour provisions. Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims are based

on 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because Plaintiffs

were employed by Defendants in this district at all times relevant to this action, Defendants

regularly conducted and continue to conduct business in this district and have engaged and

continue to engage in wrongful conduct alleged herein in this district, during all times

material to this action.

III.CLASS DESCRIPTION

3. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the following similarly situated

persons:

“All current and former hourly-paid tipped employees (servers and bartenders) who have

been employed by and worked at any Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation (IHG)

restaurant, any Burger Theory restaurant or any restaurant franchised, owned, managed

and/or operated by LinGate Hospitality, “LinGate” or Big Blue Bar, Inc. in the United

States at any time during the applicable statutory limitations’ period covered by this


3

Collective Action Complaint (i.e. two years for FLSA violations and, three years for willful

FLSA violations) up to and including the date of final judgment in this matter, and who is

the Named Plaintiff or elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §

216(b). (Collectively, “the class”).1

IV.PARTIES

4. Defendant Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation, a/k/a Intercontinental Hotels Group

“IHG”, is a Georgia Corporation and one of the world’s leading hotel companies. Inter-

Continental Hotels Corporation (hereinafter “IHG”), franchisees, manages, owns, oversees

and/or operates such hotel brands as Holiday Inn, Crowne Plaza, Candlewood Suites,

Intercontinental Hotels, Staybridge Suites, as well as Burger Theory restaurants,

throughout the United States. Its U.S. corporate offices are located at Three Ravinia Drive,

Atlanta, Georgia 30346. Plaintiffs have worked as hourly-paid tipped employees at IHG’s

and Lingate Hospitality’s Burger Theory restaurant at 600 North Fourth Street in Paducah,

Kentucky at all times material herein. Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation has been an

“employer” of Plaintiffs and class members as that term is defined in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.

§203(d), during all times material to this action.

5. Defendant Lingate Hospitality, an assumed name of Glenn Enterprises, Inc. is a Kentucky

Corporation with its corporate offices located at 1701 Spring Bank Drive, Building A

(Suite B), Owensboro, Kentucky 42203. Plaintiffs have worked as hourly-paid tipped

employees at IHG’s and Lingate Hospitality’s Burger Theory restaurant at 600 North

Fourth Street in Paducah, Kentucky at all times material herein. Lingate Hospitality has

1 Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the Class Description upon newly discovered

information gathered through the discovery process.


4

been an “employer” of Plaintiffs and class members as that term is defined in the FLSA,

29 U.S.C. §203(d), during all times material to this action.

6. Defendant LinGate (a/k/a Lingate Hospitality and Lingate Hospitality Group) is a

Kentucky business entity with its principal offices located at 1701 Spring Bank Drive,

Building A (Suite B), Owensboro, Kentucky 42203. According to its website, LinGate has

been serving the hospitality industry since 1986 and is comprised of two companies:

Linmar Hospitality and Gateway Lodging, Inc. (a Kentucky Corporation.) Plaintiffs have

worked as hourly-paid tipped employees at IHG’s and Lingate Hospitality’s Burger Theory

restaurant at 600 North Fourth Street in Paducah, Kentucky at all material times herein.

LinGate has been an “employer” of Plaintiffs and class members as that term is defined in

the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(d), during all times material to this action.

7. Upon information and belief, Burger Theory is an IHG F&B (food and beverage) jointly

operated restaurant (with Lingate Hospitality) under IHG’s “Be 1” concept, as well as an

assumed name of Big Blue Bar, Inc., a Kentucky Corporation, whose principal owner and

decision-maker has been Defendant Glenn Higdon, during all times material to this action.

8. Big Blue Bar, Inc. is a Kentucky Corporation, under whose name Burger Theory is

assumed and, whose principal owner and decision-maker has been Defendant Glenn

Higdon at all times material to this action.

9. Defendant Glenn Higdon has been the principal owner and officer of Lingate Hospitality,

Glenn Enterprises, Inc., LinGate, Linmar Hospitality, Gateway Lodging and Big Blue Bar,

Inc. and, was jointly responsible with IHG for the operational and compensation policies

and practices related to Plaintiffs and class members at the Burger Theory restaurant at 600

North Fourth Street in Paducah, Kentucky, during all times material herein. Glenn Higdon


5

has been an “employer” of Plaintiffs and class members as that term is defined in the FLSA,

29 U.S.C. §203(d), during all times material to this action.

10. Defendants have been joint employers of Plaintiffs and class members because they

worked under Defendants’ joint control and direction of the Burger Theory restaurant at

600 North Fourth Street in Paducah, Kentucky, at all times material to this action.

11. Defendants constitute an integrated enterprise, as defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act,

29 U.S.C. § 203(r), because their management, training, control and oversight activities

relating to Plaintiffs and class members at the Burger Theory restaurant at 600 North Fourth

Street in Paducah, Kentucky have been performed through a unified operation of common

control for a common business purpose, during all times material herein.

12. Plaintiff Alisha Askew has been employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid tipped

employee at Defendants’ Burger Theory restaurant at 600 North Fourth Street in Paducah,

Kentucky during all times material. (Plaintiff Alisha Askew’s Consent to Join this

collective action is attached hereto as Exhibit A.)

13. Plaintiff Deborah Williams has been employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid tipped


Kentucky during all times material. (Plaintiff Deborah Williams’ Consent to Join this

collective action is attached hereto as Exhibit B.)

14. Plaintiff Shavonna Askew has been employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid tipped


Kentucky, within this district, during all times material. (Plaintiff Shavonna Askew’s

Consent to Join this collective action is attached hereto as Exhibit C.)

V.ALLEGATIONS


6

15. Defendants, as joint employers and as an integrated enterprise, operated, trained, managed

and “oversaw” the aforementioned Burger Theory restaurant located at the Holiday Inn

Riverfront in Paducah, Kentucky, as well as operated, trained, managed and “oversaw”

other restaurants throughout the United States.

16. On information and belief, IHG had training responsibilities relating to Plaintiffs and class

members at the aforementioned Burger Theory restaurant in Paducah, Kentucky and

required them to comply with and conform to IHG’s standards, policies and practices while

so employed during all times material to this action. IHG advertised and held itself out as

having management and oversight authority over the aforementioned Burger Theory

restaurant in Paducah, Kentucky and regarded Plaintiffs and class members as its

employees. (IHG provided Plaintiffs and class members with free Amazon “Kindles” and

allowed them to use “IHG” employee discount rates at all of its other hotels, “IHG”

employee discount rates at Shell gas stations and “IHG” employee discount rates at Hertz

rental car agencies, etc.

17. Defendants LinGate, LinGate Hospitality and LinGate Hospitality Group, had joint

management responsibilities with IHG in the operation and control of the aforementioned

Burger Theory restaurant in Paducah, Kentucky during all times material to this action.

18. The primary function of Defendants’ hotel-related restaurants has been to sell and serve

food and beverage items to customers.

19. On information and belief, the decisions regarding the compensation of Plaintiffs and other

class members were made through an integrated team, under the control and direction of

Glenn Higdon and IHG management.


7

20. Defendants have and continue to employ a time keeping system for tracking and reporting

the compensable work time of Plaintiffs and class members.

21. At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs and class members have been “employees” of

Defendants as defined by Section 203(e)(1) of the FLSA and, worked for Defendants

within the territory of the United States within three (3) years preceding the filing of this

lawsuit.

22. Plaintiffs and class members are current or former employees of Defendants who were paid

a “tip credit” rate (a rate less than minimum wage) of pay against the required FLSA

minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Therefore, Defendants violated the FLSA’s minimum

wage provision.

23. At all times material to this action, Defendants have been an enterprise engaged in interstate

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as defined by Section 203(s)(1) of

the FLSA, with annual revenue in excess of $500,000.00 and, their tipped employees,

including Plaintiffs and class members, likewise have engaged in interstate commerce

during all relevant times.

24. At all times material to this action, Defendants have been an “employer” or “joint

employer” as defined by the FLSA.

25. Defendants constitute an integrated enterprise, as defined in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r),

during all times material herein.

26. Defendants have had a common plan, policy and practice (scheme) of strictly enforcing

restricted hours of compensable work per day and per week (budgeted labor cost) of

Plaintiffs and class members, to stay within or below such budgeted labor cost, during all

times material herein.


8

27. Defendants have carried out their common plan, policy and practice of strictly enforcing

their budgeted labor cost by inducing and forcing their restaurant managers to require,

direct, encourage, entice and/or, suffer and permit, Plaintiffs and class members:

(a) to perform maintenance, kitchen and housekeeping (dual occupation),2 non-tip

producing tasks for extended periods of time during their shifts while clocked-in

to Defendants’ time keeping system as tipped employees at a “tip credit” wage

rate;

(b) to perform non-tip producing “side work” tasks tangentially related to their tipped

occupation but non-tip producing in nature more than twenty (20%) percent of

their shifts, and attend meetings and training, while only receiving a tip credit for

such work and time; and

(c) to pool their banquet tips with cooks and housekeeping employees who are not

hourly-paid tipped employees (constituting an unlawful “tip pool”).

28. As tipped employees, Plaintiffs and putative class members performed non-tip producing

tasks including, but not limited to: washing and stocking dishes and silverware; cutting

lemons, limes, and fruit; washing linens; sweeping and mopping their assigned serving

sections; cleaning, and dusting ledges; cleaning glass and windows; mopping; filling salt

and pepper shakers; rolling silverware; various cooking duties, such as cooking french

fries; stocking and filling condiments; busing tables; and preparing banquet areas,

including arranging plates and glasses.

29. Plaintiffs and class members routinely work shifts that lasted between eight (8) and nine

(9) hours.

2 See 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(e)


9

30. Plaintiffs estimate that they routinely spent two (2) to three (3) hours performing non-tip

producing tasks, as described above.

31. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and class members performed such “off-the-clock”, “dual

occupation”, “more than twenty (20%) percent and related meetings/training time,” and

suffered a loss of tips as a result of the aforementioned unlawful “tip pool” scheme.

Consequently, they were not paid the applicable FLSA minimum wage rate of pay for all

such hours worked.

32. Further, Defendants cannot claim a tip credit for any tips Plaintiffs received from

Defendants’ customers. Defendants cannot establish they complied with the tip credit

provisions of Section 203(m). See 29 U.S.C. § 2013(m). For example, as previously stated,

at times Defendants required Plaintiffs, and putative class members, to give up a portion

of their tips to ineligible employees and others not entitled to receive them.

33. Plaintiffs' and Class Members' “dual occupation”, “more than twenty (20%) percent and

related meetings/training time” and, “unlawful tip pooling” claims have been unified

through common theories of Defendants’ FLSA violations.

34. As a result, Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to at least the applicable FLSA

minimum wage rates of pay for all such unpaid wage claims, including at least the

applicable minimum wage rate of pay, without applying any tip credit, for all hours worked

on shifts during which unlawful tip pooling occurred.

35. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Fact Sheet #15 provides “the maximum tip credit that an

employer can currently claim under the FLSA is $5.12 per hour (the minimum wage of

$7.25 minus the minimum required cash wage of $2.13).


10

36. According to the regulation promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor, “…tips are the

property of the employee whether or not the employer has taken a tip credit under section

(3) of the FLSA.” 29 C.F.R. § 531.52.

37. The net effect of Defendants’ aforementioned plan, policy and practice of requiring

Plaintiffs and other class members to perform unrelated maintenance, kitchen and

housekeeping, non-tip producing (dual occupation) work for extended periods of time at

only the tip credit rate when not assigned “tables” and customers, to perform unrelated

preparation and maintenance “side work” of more than twenty (20%) percent of the time,

and attend mandatory meetings and required training, while only receiving a tip credit wage

for such time and, to unlawfully pool their banquet tips with non-tipped hourly-paid

employees, was to stay within its “budgeted labor” cost for their jointly managed and

operated restaurants and, thereby, save payroll costs and payroll taxes. As a consequence,

Defendants have violated the FLSA and, thereby enjoyed ill-gained profits at the expense

of their tipped employees, including Plaintiff and class members.

38. Although at this stage Plaintiffs are unable to state the exact amount owed to them and

class members, they believe such information will become available during the course of

discovery. However, when an employer fails to keep complete and accurate time records,

employees may establish the hours worked solely by their testimony and the burden of

proof of overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer.

VI.COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

39. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the class as a collective action

pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207, and 216(b).


11

40. The claims under the FLSA may be pursued by those who opt-in to this case under 29

U.S.C. § 216(b).

41. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all other members of the class is

impracticable. While the exact number of the other members of the class is unknown to

Plaintiffs at this time and, can only be ascertained through applicable discovery, they

believe there are hundreds of individuals in the putative class.

42. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs and other members

of the class who work or have worked for Defendants’ restaurants were subjected to the

same operational, compensation and timekeeping policies and practices of Defendants,

without being paid fully for all their aforementioned wage claims at the applicable FLSA

minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay.

43. As a result, such aforementioned unpaid wage claims of Plaintiffs and class members are

unified through common theories of Defendants' FLSA statutory violations.

44. Common questions of law and fact exist as to the class which predominate over any

questions only affecting other members of the class individually and include, but are not

limited to, the following:

Whether Plaintiffs and other members of the class were expected and/or required to perform work without being paid full compensation;

Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the other members of the class the applicable FLSA minimum wage rates of pay for all work performed;

The correct statutes of limitations for the claims of Plaintiffs and other members of the class;

Whether Plaintiffs and other members of the class are entitled to damages from Defendants, including but not limited to liquidated damages, and the measure of the damages; and,


12

Whether Defendants are liable for interest, attorneys’ interest, fees, and costs to Plaintiff and the class.

45. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as their interests are

aligned with those of the other members of the class. Plaintiffs have no interests adverse

to the class and, they have retained competent counsel who are experienced in collective

action litigation.

46. The collective action mechanism is superior to the other available methods for a fair and

efficient adjudication of the controversy. The expenses, costs, and burden of litigation

suffered by individual other members of the class in a collective action are relatively small

in comparison to the expenses, costs, and burden of litigation of individual actions, making

it virtually impossible for other members of the class to individually seek address for the

wrongs done to them.

47. Plaintiffs and other members of the class have suffered and will continue to suffer

irreparable damage from the unlawful policies, practices, and procedures implemented by

Defendants.

COUNT IFLSA VIOLATIONS – MINIMUM WAGE

(On Behalf of the Class)

48. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other members of the class, repeat and re-allege

Paragraphs 1 through 44 above, as if they were fully set forth herein.

49. At all times relevant herein, Defendants have been and continue to be an employer engaged

in interstate commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) and 207(a).

Plaintiffs and class members likewise have been engaged in interstate commerce during all

relevant times.


13

50. Pursuant to Defendants’ aforementioned common plans, policies and practices, it has failed

to pay Plaintiffs and other members of the class the applicable minimum wage rates for all

work performed, as required by the FLSA.

51. At all times relevant and based on the aforementioned allegations, Defendants have had a

common plan, policy and practice of willfully refusing to pay Plaintiffs and other members

of the class for all compensable time, including for all unrelated maintenance, kitchen and

housekeeping “dual occupation” non-tip producing work time when not assigned “tables”

and customers at only a tip credit wage rate, for all unrelated non-tip producing preparation

and maintenance “side work” in excess of twenty (20%) percent of their time, and

“meetings/training” time, at only a tip credit wage rather than at the applicable FLSA

minimum wage rate of pay.

52. At all times relevant herein, Defendants’ aforementioned common plans, policies and

practices of willfully failing to pay Plaintiff and members of the class at least the required

minimum wage rate of $7.25 an hour for the aforementioned claims violate the FLSA. Such

claims are unified through common theories of Defendants’ FLSA violations.

53. At all times relevant and based on the aforementioned allegations, Defendants have had a

common plan, policy and practice of pooling earned tips of Plaintiffs and class members

with non-tipped hourly employees and, thereby constituting an unlawful “tip pool”

compensation plan.

54. As result, Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to the applicable FLSA minimum wage

rate of $7.25 per hour, without applying any tip credit, for all hours worked during shifts

in which such unlawful “tip pooling” occurred, during the relevant statutory period of time

herein.


14

55. At all times relevant, Defendants have had actual as well as constructive knowledge of

willfully refusing to pay Plaintiffs and other members of the class for all the

aforementioned unpaid wage claims of at least the applicable FLSA minimum wage rate

of pay.

56. Defendants knew or showed reckless disregard for whether their practices violated the

minimum wage provisions of the FLSA.

57. Defendants’ aforementioned FLSA violations were willful and, committed without a good

faith basis. Therefore, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA

within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Whereas, Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly

situated members of the class, request this Court to grant the following relief against Defendants:

A. Designation of this cause as a collective action on behalf of the class and promptly issue

notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), apprising class members of the pendency of this

action and permitting other members of the class to assert timely FLSA claims in this

action by filing individual Consents under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

B. On Count I, an award of compensation for unpaid minimum wages to Plaintiffs and other

members of the class at the applicable FLSA minimum wage rate of pay.

C. On Count I, an award of liquidated damages to Plaintiffs and other members of the class;

D. On Count I, an award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the applicable legal

rate to Plaintiffs and other members of the class;


15

E. On Count I, an award of costs, expenses, and disbursements relating to this action

together with reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees to Plaintiffs and other members

of the class;

F. On Count I, a ruling that the three-year statutory period for willful violations under the

FLSA shall apply in this action, and;

G. Such other general and specific relief as this Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs demand a trial

by jury on all issues so triable


16

Dated: February 15, 2019. Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Lori KeenLori Keen (KY BPR #90250)Glassman Edwards Wade & Wyatt, PC Attorney at Law 26 North 2nd St. Memphis, TN 38103 (901) [email protected]

&

Gordon E. Jackson* (TN BPR #08323)J. Russ Bryant* (TN BPR) #33830)Robert E. Turner, IV* (TN BPR #35364)JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLTAttorneys at Law262 German Oak DriveMemphis, Tennessee 38018Tel: (901) 754-8001Fax: (901) [email protected]@[email protected]

* Pro Hac Vice Admission Anticipated

Attorneys for the Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated currentand former employees


EXHIBIT ACase 5:19-cv-00024-TBR Document 1-1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 17

EXHIBIT ACase 5:19-cv-00024-TBR Document 1-1 Filed 02/15/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 18

EXHIBIT BCase 5:19-cv-00024-TBR Document 1-2 Filed 02/15/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 19

EXHIBIT BCase 5:19-cv-00024-TBR Document 1-2 Filed 02/15/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 20

EXHIBIT CCase 5:19-cv-00024-TBR Document 1-3 Filed 02/15/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 21

EXHIBIT CCase 5:19-cv-00024-TBR Document 1-3 Filed 02/15/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 22

JS 44 (Rev. 08/18) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 485 Telephone Consumer

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 490 Cable/Sat TV195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 850 Securities/Commodities/196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 890 Other Statutory Actions Medical Malpractice Leave Act 891 Agricultural Acts

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS 893 Environmental Matters210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 895 Freedom of Information220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party 896 Arbitration240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 899 Administrative Procedure245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision

Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application 950 Constitutionality of446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration State Statutes

Other 550 Civil Rights Actions448 Education 555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)1 Original

Proceeding2 Removed from

State Court 3 Remanded from

Appellate Court4 Reinstated or

Reopened 5 Transferred from

Another District(specify)

6 MultidistrictLitigation -Transfer

8 Multidistrict Litigation - Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONCite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBERDATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

ALISHA ASKEW, et al. INTER-CONTINENTAL CORPORATION, et al.

McCraken County, KY

Lori Keen; Glassman Edwards Wade & Wyatt, PC; 26 North 2nd, St.,Memphis, TN 38103; (901) 527-4673

29 USC 201, et seq.

Collective Action under 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards act for the recovery of unpaid wages.

02/ /2019 /s/ Lori Keen

Case 5:19-cv-00024-TBR Document 1-4 Filed 02/15/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 23

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/18)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers asrequired by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, isrequired for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk ofCourt for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, useonly the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title.

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, notingin this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark thissection for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers.Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.


AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the

__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if youare the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Western District of Kentucky

ALISHA ASKEW,et al.,

INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION,et al.,

BIG BLUE BAR, INC.Reg. Agent: Glenn D. Higdon1401 Springbank Dr.Bldg. A, Ste 8Owensboro, KY 42304

Glassman Edwards Wade & Wyatt, PC JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT26 North 2nd, St., Memphis, TN 38103 262 German Oak Drive(901) 527-4673 Cordova, TN 38018

(901) 754-8001


AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00




__________ District of __________

))))))))))))

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)






CLERK OF COURT





BURGER THEORY, assumed name of BIG BLUE BAR, INC.Reg. Agent: Glenn D. Higdon1401 Springbank Dr.Bldg. A, Ste 8Owensboro, KY 42304


(901) 754-8001
